Case 2500992/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ben Forsyth v SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) — 2023

Case reference: 2500992/2022
Decision date: 12 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Jeram

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ben Forsyth

Respondent

SE-Tek Ltd (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment was made pursuant to rule 21. The tribunal held that Ben Forsyth's complaint under s.189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded, on the basis that SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) failed adequately to comply with a requirement of s.188 of that Act. The claim for a protective award also succeeded.

The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 13 July 2022, which the judgment records as the date on which dismissal took effect. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award. No monetary amount was specified in the judgment.

All claims other than the successful protective award complaint were struck out as not actively pursued. The judgment also records that neither the consent of the Administrator nor the permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award complaint under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for failure adequately to comply with s.188 requirements succeeded; remuneration was ordered for a protected period of 90 days from 13 July 2022, but no monetary figure was stated.	Upheld	—	—
Other	All other claims were struck out as not actively pursued; the judgment does not identify those claims separately.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.